Over 0–100 km/h, SQ2 wins (4,94 s vs 5,19 s).
Simulated drag race 0 → 1,000 m in real time. Synchronised speed counters and stopwatch. Physics calibration on 7 manufacturer measurements.
| Measure | XM 50e G09 | SQ2 | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 5.19 s | 4.94 s | 0.25 s · SQ2 |
| 400 m standing start | 13.44 s | 13.47 s | 0.03 s · XM 50e G09 |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24.30 s | 24.55 s | 0.25 s · XM 50e G09 |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 250 km/h | 257 km/h | 7 km/h · SQ2 |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 5.50 kg/hp | 5.12 kg/hp | better ratio · SQ2 |
Standing-start drag race, calibrated on manufacturer splits. The gap shows at each stage.
| Stage | XM 50e G09 | SQ2 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1.39 s | 1.24 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 2.33 s | 2.07 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 3.82 s | 3.54 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 5.19 s | 4.94 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 6.88 s | 7.19 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 11.59 s | 12.14 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 18.84 s | 19.93 s |
| 400 m standing start | 13.44 s · tight gap | 13.47 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24.30 s | 24.55 s |
| Top speed limited | 250 km/h | 257 km/h |
Physics model calibrated on manufacturer splits. The limited top speed is not the real aerodynamic top speed of the vehicles.
Manufacturer technical specifications. The power-to-weight ratio is the key physical factor in a drag race.
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 476 hp | 4 cyl |
| Torque | 700 Nm | |
| Weight | 2 620 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | Eight-speed M Steptronic transmission |
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 300 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 400 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 535 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | 7-speed S tronic |
Off the line, the SQ2 hits 100 km/h in 4.94 s versus 5.19 s for the XM 50e. Despite lacking instant torque, 300 hp of power compensates. At this point, the SQ2 leads by 0.25 s and sits roughly 6 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the SQ2 is doing 133 km/h against 139 km/h for the XM 50e. The gap is 0.10 s. The challenger starts to claw back ground.
At 400 metres standing start, the XM 50e crosses the line in 13.44 s versus 13.47 s. The 0.03 s gap represents roughly 2 m of track
Past 400 metres, the XM 50e continues to build its lead. At 600 metres, it runs at 193 km/h versus 190 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the XM 50e finishes in 24.30 s versus 24.55 s, with a 0.25 s lead. Both vehicles have similar top speeds (250 (i.e. 155 mph - industry threshold) vs 257 km/h), preventing any comeback.
Electronically capped at 250 (i.e. 155 mph - industry threshold) km/h, the XM 50e never reaches its natural aerodynamic ceiling in this duel. That’s not a physical limit of the motor - it’s a deliberate manufacturer decision, typically tied to standard-fit tyre ratings or model-range positioning.
Instant electric torque gives an advantage off the line. The higher top speed of the combustion engine gives an advantage over longer distances. The distance at which one catches the other depends on the top speed differential.
In European road use (130 km/h max), both vehicles reach the legal speed limit in under 8.36 seconds. The 0.25 s difference in 0 to 100 km/h is mostly felt in motorway merging and overtaking.
Over 0–100 km/h, SQ2 wins (4,94 s vs 5,19 s).
XM 50e G09 goes from 0 to 100 km/h in 5,19 seconds (calibrated simulation).
XM 50e G09: 476 hp, ratio 5,50 kg/hp. SQ2: 300 hp, ratio 5,12 kg/hp.
XM 50e G09: 250 km/h. SQ2: 257 km/h.